Ballot measures

Activists List
1

At our monthly meeting on Saturday, we discussed a number of the local ballot measures (listed at https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures with links to the text of each measure), and voted to take positions on a number of them:
   
• Health and Homelessness, Parks, and Streets Bond – NO
• Removing Citizenship Requirements for Members of City Bodies – NO POSITION
• Real Estate Transfer Tax – NO
• Affordable Housing Authorization – NO
• Parcel Tax for San Francisco Unified School District – NO
• Neighborhood Commercial Districts and City Permitting – YES
• Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive's Pay to Employees' Pay – NO
• CalTrain Sales Tax (regional measure RR) – NO

  The citizenship measure was a tough one – initially I thought it would be an easy yes, but then we discovered that while it would remove the requirement to be a U.S. citizen to serve on government bodies (a positive change), it would also remove the ability of citizens living outside SF (e.g. someone working in SF but living in the East Bay, like our treasurer) ineligible for such service. After some discussion, we decided to remain neutral.

  There are five remaining local measures on which we did not vote:

• Public Works Commission, Department of Sanitation and Streets, and Sanitation and Streets Commission
• Youth Voting in Local Elections
• Sheriff Oversight
• Police Staffing
• Business Tax Overhaul

  It was decided that the officers will vote on positions for these remaining measures that we ran out of time on, with discussion and input from other LPSF members on the email list. (We have not yet modified our bylaws to allow for voting by the general membership between meetings, as I hope we will.) This should preferably happen in the next couple days, as the deadline to submit free ballot arguments against any measures we may oppose is noon on Thursday, August 13.

  The statements on or descriptions of each ballot measure from the Controller, City Attorney, and Ballot Simplification Committee are all due today (Monday, August 10). Having that language may make it easier to decide what position to take on a couple of these – the measure regarding the Department of Public Works, and the business tax overhaul. It is not immediately clear what the likely fiscal impact of either measure would be, although I think the latter one in particular is probably bad news.

  The other three measures – allowing 16-17 year olds to vote in local elections, strengthening oversight of the Sheriff's Department, and removing the mandatory minimum requirement for number of police officers (which the city government has been ignoring anyway) should all be easy "yes" votes in my opinion, but we did previously discuss the youth voting measure and there was some disagreement on that.

  All the local ballot measures are also due to be assigned letters today by the Elections Department. Measure RR, being a regional measure to also be voted on by voters in other counties, already has its letter designation.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))
LPSF chair
(415) 625-FREE

2

If you have opinions on the matters we haven’t yet considered, or have new points for the issues we have already considered, please share them!

Thanks!

3

Michael,

  I'm somewhat surprised to see you take this position, as you're generally one of the strongest advocates for individual rights and principle. The approach you recommend here seems driven by "practical" considerations rather than by principle, i.e. look primarily at groups rather than individuals, and throw individual libertarian-leaning millennials under the bus regarding their civil rights to vote, on the grounds that a random individual in their group (age cohort) is more likely to make bad political decisions than a random individual in older age cohorts*.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

*I'm not sure we have enough information to conclusively determine that this is true, but even if we assume it is true, I don't think penalizing people as members of groups rather than treating them as individuals who are innocent until proven guilty is philosophically supported.

4

Thanks, Starchild.

You are correct in part.

My practical recommendation is fueled indirectly by considering the NAP: more voting libertarians and fewer voting statists are the best hope for electing NAP-leaning politicians.

I believe people do not have an individual right to vote for more Govt.

Where am I off?

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
415-673-2848 (24/7)
www.TheREBT.Life <http://www.therebt.life/>
www.ThreeMinuteTherapy.com <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>

Co-author of Three Minute Therapy <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>
with David Ramsay Steele, Ph.D.
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks, addiction

Michael,

  I'm somewhat surprised to see you take this position, as you're generally one of the strongest advocates for individual rights and principle. The approach you recommend here seems driven by "practical" considerations rather than by principle, i.e. look primarily at groups rather than individuals, and throw individual libertarian-leaning millennials under the bus regarding their civil rights to vote, on the grounds that a random individual in their group (age cohort) is more likely to make bad political decisions than a random individual in older age cohorts*.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

*I'm not sure we have enough information to conclusively determine that this is true, but even if we assume it is true, I don't think penalizing people as members of groups rather than treating them as individuals who are innocent until proven guilty is philosophically supported.

5

I concur with Richard's remarks below. While I agree that there is no individual "right" to vote for aggression, to presume based on statistics that someone will vote for aggression and therefore should be denied the vote, goes against the core principle of innocent until proven guilty.

  A practical argument is that Libertarians taking a position in favor of the disenfranchisement of young people is likely to cause some to see the LP as opposed to people of their identity (in this case, age group), and thus result in fewer Libertarian (NAP-leaning) candidates getting elected, not more. We've seen how this has worked out for the GOP in relation to groups like blacks and immigrants. Such stances are likely to become self-fulfilling prophecies.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

6

Michael,

  I think you're responding to Richard's comments here, not mine, but the other recent comment I just posted may in some part address your question.

  I'll add that indiscriminately allowing more people to vote upholds the principle that while individuals and voluntary associations (companies, churches, clubs, etc.) have the right to discriminate, governments do not. Because of their involuntary nature, and claims to represent everyone, they have a unique obligation to treat everyone equally.

  I also think that consistently adhering to principle even in cases where some may see practical reasons not to do so, will enhance the reputation of (L)ibertarians and thereby improve the prospects that more people will vote for small government.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

7

I agree with Richard Fast and Starchild. Societies that don't accept the principle that every adult citizen may vote are destined for civil war, violence, and disorder. There is no principle that says the franchise should not be equal. If one group says "believers in X should not be allowed to vote", then believers in X are justified in saying "believers in Y should not be allowed to vote." The whole point of elections is to avoid violelnt conflict.

Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

8

The operative word here is “adult”
It is hard to argue that 16 and 17 year olds are adults.
I didn’t get to vote til I was 21 and that seems a perfectly reasonable age
Françoise

9

My 19 year old doesn’t have a clue. My 21 year old has “half a clue”.

You can talk to my 28 and 29 year olds like mature people and have been able to since they were around 24 although we certainly don’t always agree.

Just sayin’.

Mike

10

Thanks, Richard.

The existing voting age disenfranchises 17 year olds. Disenfranchising others are part of the voting assumptions.

I don’t necessarily oppose civil war, violence, and disorder. When 51% of the populace are libertarians, presumably the Statists would be voted out. But if not (say too many libertarians don’t believe in voting), civil war, violence, and disorder may be the last resort.

I agree with Richard Fast and Starchild. Societies that don't accept the principle that every adult citizen may vote are destined for civil war, violence, and disorder. There is no principle that says the franchise should not be equal. If one group says "believers in X should not be allowed to vote", then believers in X are justified in saying "believers in Y should not be allowed to vote." The whole point of elections is to avoid violelnt conflict.

Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

Michael,

  I think you're responding to Richard's comments here, not mine, but the other recent comment I just posted may in some part address your question.

  I'll add that indiscriminately allowing more people to vote upholds the principle that while individuals and voluntary associations (companies, churches, clubs, etc.) have the right to discriminate, governments do not. Because of their involuntary nature, and claims to represent everyone, they have a unique obligation to treat everyone equally.

  I also think that consistently adhering to principle even in cases where some may see practical reasons not to do so, will enhance the reputation of (L)ibertarians and thereby improve the prospects that more people will vote for small government.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

11

Starchild,

I’m not assuming everyone under 30 would vote statist. I’m generalizing about the group.

Since my objective involves excluding statist-oriented folks and including those less so, to avoid overgeneralization (thanks for pointing it out) I would include taking and passing a test (with at least a C grade) with questions about economics, ethics, and war. Granted, the various practical problems presented by this may be real disadvantages, I’m looking at a solution (as impractical as it is) that honors the NAP and would decrease voting statist-leaning individuals.

Don’t worry, it’s not going to happen!

I think as long as there is gov, suffrage should be extended as wide as practicable. Why? Because gov affects everybody, so everybody should have a say in how gov operates, to the extent practicable. Anyone who works and is taxed on their labor ought to be extended a say on whether and how that tax money is spent. To assume that those under 30 will vote against freedom is a grave mistake. I am one such example; under 30 and hard-core an cap.

Thanks, Starchild.

You are correct in part.

My practical recommendation is fueled indirectly by considering the NAP: more voting libertarians and fewer voting statists are the best hope for electing NAP-leaning politicians.

I believe people do not have an individual right to vote for more Govt.

Where am I off?

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
415-673-2848 (24/7)
www.TheREBT.Life <http://www.therebt.life/>
www.ThreeMinuteTherapy.com <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>

Co-author of Three Minute Therapy <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>
with David Ramsay Steele, Ph.D.
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks, addiction

Michael,

  I'm somewhat surprised to see you take this position, as you're generally one of the strongest advocates for individual rights and principle. The approach you recommend here seems driven by "practical" considerations rather than by principle, i.e. look primarily at groups rather than individuals, and throw individual libertarian-leaning millennials under the bus regarding their civil rights to vote, on the grounds that a random individual in their group (age cohort) is more likely to make bad political decisions than a random individual in older age cohorts*.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

*I'm not sure we have enough information to conclusively determine that this is true, but even if we assume it is true, I don't think penalizing people as members of groups rather than treating them as individuals who are innocent until proven guilty is philosophically supported.

12

Starchild,

As Françoise astutely noted in her response on this thread, the Govt already does discriminate according to age. Requesting they discriminate to favor liberty does not seem like a stretch.

Michael E.

Michael,

  I think you're responding to Richard's comments here, not mine, but the other recent comment I just posted may in some part address your question.

  I'll add that indiscriminately allowing more people to vote upholds the principle that while individuals and voluntary associations (companies, churches, clubs, etc.) have the right to discriminate, governments do not. Because of their involuntary nature, and claims to represent everyone, they have a unique obligation to treat everyone equally.

  I also think that consistently adhering to principle even in cases where some may see practical reasons not to do so, will enhance the reputation of (L)ibertarians and thereby improve the prospects that more people will vote for small government.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

13

Starchild,

I agree, in a court of law “innocent until proven guilty” is a fine standard. I’m not claiming anyone is guilty of a crime by having the intention to vote for big govt, nor would I sue anyone for bad thoughts.

  I concur with Richard's remarks below. While I agree that there is no individual "right" to vote for aggression, to presume based on statistics that someone will vote for aggression and therefore should be denied the vote, goes against the core principle of innocent until proven guilty.

  A practical argument is that Libertarians taking a position in favor of the disenfranchisement of young people is likely to cause some to see the LP as opposed to people of their identity (in this case, age group), and thus result in fewer Libertarian (NAP-leaning) candidates getting elected, not more. We've seen how this has worked out for the GOP in relation to groups like blacks and immigrants. Such stances are likely to become self-fulfilling prophecies.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

14

One of the reasons I joined the Libertarian Party is because of its bold,
radical approaches to problems that affect everyone. I believe if we miss
the boat on this one, we will be doing ourselves a disservice as leaders of
a world set free in our lifetimes. We seek freedom for everyone, not only
those we perceive will agree with us.

15

Richard F.,

Likewise!

I imagine all libertarians have the same objective. Of course since we’re all subjective, imperfect humans we differ in how to achieve it. Airing disagreements, then negotiating differences, is how we get closer.

Unfortunately in the larger culture with its cancelling, shaming, safe spaces, trigger warnings, microaggressions, and in general intolerance, respectful dialogue is breaking down.

It’s inspiring to see its absence in the LPSF!

Michael E.

One of the reasons I joined the Libertarian Party is because of its bold, radical approaches to problems that affect everyone. I believe if we miss the boat on this one, we will be doing ourselves a disservice as leaders of a world set free in our lifetimes. We seek freedom for everyone, not only those we perceive will agree with us.

Starchild,

I agree, in a court of law “innocent until proven guilty” is a fine standard. I’m not claiming anyone is guilty of a crime by having the intention to vote for big govt, nor would I sue anyone for bad thoughts.

  I concur with Richard's remarks below. While I agree that there is no individual "right" to vote for aggression, to presume based on statistics that someone will vote for aggression and therefore should be denied the vote, goes against the core principle of innocent until proven guilty.

  A practical argument is that Libertarians taking a position in favor of the disenfranchisement of young people is likely to cause some to see the LP as opposed to people of their identity (in this case, age group), and thus result in fewer Libertarian (NAP-leaning) candidates getting elected, not more. We've seen how this has worked out for the GOP in relation to groups like blacks and immigrants. Such stances are likely to become self-fulfilling prophecies.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

16

I will be voting "yes" because I believe it helps young people mature if they realize they can vote. They will start thinking, reading, studying, discussing. And all those activities are good for them and for society.
Although humans don't emotionally mature until their early 20's, their ability to think reaches his normal adult peak at the age of 12, or so I have read.

Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

17

The frontal lobe doesn’t complete development until the late 20’s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobe

It shows up statistically in driving records which is why you can’t rent a car until you are 25 or 26 year old.

My oldest son went from a raging maniac spewing venom to apologizing for his behavior because “you didn’t deserve the way I treated you dad” between the age of 25-26.

Mike

18

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to make the August LPSF meeting so I don't
know what the consensus was to do with this item. I'm assuming we still
face an August deadline for position submissions. I'm ready to proceed
with a vote.

19

I note that the people who are in favor of lowering the voting age are all childless....

20

I teach and tutor middle school through high school.